Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 687328,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/687328/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 93,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Khaniri",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 171,
        "legal_name": "George Munyasa Khaniri",
        "slug": "george-khaniri"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the adoption of the amended version of the Bill. As stated earlier on, I had the privilege to co-chair the Mediation Committee together with Hon. (Dr.) Wilbur Otichillo from the National Assembly. We had debated the Forest Conservation and Management Bill extensively and what we are doing today is just to adopt the mediated version. Having been a co- chair and your representative in the Mediation Committee, I owe you an explanation of what transpired. It should be noted that this Bill originated from the National Assembly and the Senate had made very many amendments. In fact, the Senate had amended a total of 23 Clauses. I wish to report that the National Assembly agreed with almost all those amendments save for three clauses plus the Schedule that Sen. Wetangula had earlier alluded to. The first clause that the National Assembly made an amendment to the amendments that we had made was the one to do with the circumstances under which a person shall not be eligible to sit on the board. All the conditionalities that the Senate had put were accepted, but redrafted. One more conditionality (e) was added; ‘a person who violates the Constitution or any other written law.’ Therefore, essentially, they agreed with us but just redrafted the conditionalities or circumstances which the Senate had already enumerated. The other issue was the Schedule, which I have explained earlier. The Senate had proposed deletion of some gazetted forests. The reason for this was because those particular forests were appearing twice. When we explained to them they agreed with us and we deleted those particular forests, but they still remain because they were appearing twice. They appear on the list of gazetted forests, but just once. The last issue that they disagreed on, and which we consented to as a team from the Senate, was that the Senate, in our duty to defend the interest of the counties, had insisted to put a legislation that the relevant counties will at all times be furnished with pertinent copies of all the relevant documents maintained in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests. This particular amendment was rejected on the premise that this information held by the Chief Conservator of Forests is public knowledge and, therefore, The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}